Okuma America Corp. v. Bowers
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WYNN, Judge.
When considering the enforceability of a covenant not to compete, a court examines the reasonableness of its time and geographic restrictions, balancing the substantial right of the employee to work with that of the employer to protect its legitimate business interests. 1 Here, Plaintiff Okuma America Corporation appeals the trial court’s grant of Defendant Phillip Bowers’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding that the covenant in question was “overly broad and unenforceable as a matter of law.” Because we find that the covenant’s enforceability in this case rests on questions of fact…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Peoples Security Life Insurance v. HooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- Visionair, Inc. v. James & Colossus Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Hartman v. WH Odell and Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. RidgwayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Kinesis Advertising, Inc. v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Piles v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Horner International Co. v. McKoyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
- Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. HopeDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2009
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.